OK, so, this game will be a multiplayer hotseat game, based off the rules of many of the popular MP stories in this forum.
Here's the deal:

Player types:
The HOS, who deals with, primarily, foreign relations, choosing research, overall military, etc. Who it is, how they gain power, and how much power they have is determined by gov't type. The HOS also represents the civ in the World Council.

The Military Leaders (GG), who are appointed according to the players choice and government type. Those players have control over their GG, whether it be starting a Golden Age, leading military units, or building a citadel. Anything that removes the GG from play terminates their term.

Governors (Heads of Cities), who are in charge of one specific city, its builds, priorities, and all of its lands. Again, appointed by a combination of government type and player choice.

Faction Leaders, the founders/leaders of a certain group of players. Factions are the main focus of this, as powerful factions can influence policy, by attacking or pressuring the HOS, etc. During anarchy/revolutions, they all act as HOS, which can be problematic if there are many factions. Faction leaders can start civil wars, revolutions, and coup d'etats. I'm thinking I'll split this into religious/political factions, too.

Citizens, who can join factions, obtain any above positions, petition the World Council, ask for foreign aid in revolutions, etc.

World Council members, who are the HOS's of their respective civs. This group deals with foreign policy and international interventions.

Founders of civs. The one and only extra job of these guys is to represent their civ at the first World Council.

Joining:
Any player can comment a civilization they'd like to be a member of, until there are a max of 7 civs (I will be #8, idk what it will be yet, though). You can only be a member of 1 civ, all DLC are available, each civ can only exist once. At that point, any players can still join, just not found a new civ.

Government:
Your government type will be based upon your social policies:

Tradition will make you an absolute monarchy, where the Head of State (HOS) holds power. Adopting Liberty or Freedom will add a parliamentary monarchy, where there will be a parliament, as well. The first monarch is the founder of the team. Monarch is HOS

Liberty will make you a republic, where HOS is elected, and holds power with other elected representatives.

Honor will make you an oligarchy, where power is held by a combination of military leaders (GG's) and diplomatic leaders (1 per city). Those leaders choose the HOS.

Piety will make you a theocracy, where power lies in the religion with the most members. HOS is the leader of that religion.

Patronage, Commerce, Rationalism- No Effect

Freedom- Democracy. Every member of a team holds power, HOS is elected.

Autocracy- Dictatorship. An instant revolution occurs, and every member of the team must join a faction. Whichever faction wins, their leader is now HOS, and can either hold absolute power, or share it with military leaders (GG)

Order- no effect.

How elections are held, how evenly power is shared, any other part not mentioned above, is up to the members of that civ (or the ruling faction).
Adopting a new branch instantly changes gov't type, but it can be changed at any time through revolution, coup d'etat, civil war, or international intervention.

Military:
Military groupings are led by Military leaders (GG users), who, in turn, answer to the HOS or faction leader they support.

Factions:
Factions are groups which influence policies. Joining a faction is optional, but will give a player more power. During Anarchy, Dictatorships, and Theocracies, faction membership is mandatory.

Factions may ally with other factions, and adopt religions.

Religions: Religion operate like super-factions, and can be adopted by factions. Religious leaders operate akin to Faction leaders, but a religion must have a leader in each nation it is present in. Theocracies are the only gov'ts ruled by religions, and may declare war on other religions.

Etc.:
You cannot "die", but you can be deposed by coup d'etats, civil wars, and revolutions. losing your GG, HOS, or City, or foreign intervention by the World Council.

Anyone can join any civ (except mine), but I will only accept the orders of the faction in power.

Every civ must post all of its factions, HOS, and leaders (GG= Military, City= Diplo), as well as its gov't type. All members of a civ must declare their faction, or unaligned, as gov't type permits.

The "World Council" will consist of the HOS's of all non-AI civs, and will discuss & act upon international issues. Pre-game, it will determine map type, how to handle international aid, revolutions and coup d'etats, etc.

Before adopting a social policy, during revolutions, or when "anarchy" is declared, a civ enters anarchy. During anarchy, all factions are led by Warlords, who all have absolute power. They will all represent a civ at the World Council, until the revolution ends. Warlords must be declared by a civ.

The exception is the Pre-game World Council, when the founders of all civs will act as HOS.

To speed up game time, any civ who does not issue orders within 24 hours will have all of their assets sold off for no profit, their army disbanded, and DOW all possible civs immediately. If a response is made afterwards, control will be re-awarded. Complete Kills will be on.

I realize that was very long and confusing, so just post with questions if necessary.

Who's in?

Civs:
1: Unknown Civ.
HOS: CivOasis

2. India
Government Type: Anarchy.

HOS: In anarchy.

Warlords: chgrogers (Indian People Party)

Generals: none.

Governors: none.

Factions: Indian People Party (Supports tradition and a vertical tomorrow)

Citizens: chgrogers (Indian People Party)

Religion: none.

3. Japan (?)
Government Type: Anarchy.

HOS: In anarchy.

Warlords: Jehoshua

Generals: none.

Governors: none.

Factions: ?

Citizens: Jehoshua

Religion: none.


4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

In retrospect, that was far more complicated than it needed to be. For now, post the following:
Your chosen civ.
Your faction name.
If founding a faction, state what it stands for.
If founding a religious faction (for the theocracy government), specify.
Please, remember to keep it civil.
Rulse will be finalized with the pre-game World Council.

(I'd join this, but I only have Polynesia and down. No Denmark or Korea)

No, you misunderstand: I'm basing this off of the RealPolitiks and similar games, where one player controls a civilization, but takes orders from others. In this case, there are multiple civs, and, within those civs, factions. A civ takes orders, then posts them, and I carry it out on my computer, and post the results. So, no one actually needs to own a DLC, because it all comes from my computer.

In other words, literally all you would need to do, is name a civ, faction, and "idealogy" to join.

Hmmm. So is it like a team diplo-game for civ 5? Are there any special actions we can take? Do our characters have individual money/property?

Ok ill try to start it with India and Tradition.

Edit:

Faction Name:
Indian People Party.

The party who support the Indian Traditional Way of life and a vertical tomorrow.

Hmmm. So is it like a team diplo-game for civ 5? Are there any special actions we can take? Do our characters have individual money/property?
Dot80: I'm going to re-write the first post to make it more clear, but basically, there are the following:

The HOS, who deals with, primarily, foreign relations, choosing research, overall military, etc. Who it is, how they gain power, and how much power they have is determined by gov't type. The HOS also represents the civ in the World Council.

The Military Leaders (GG), who are appointed according to the players choice and government type. Those players have control over their GG, whether it be starting a Golden Age, leading military units, or building a citadel. Anything that removes the GG from play terminates their term.

Governors (Heads of Cities), who are in charge of one specific city, its builds, priorities, and all of its lands. Again, appointed by a combination of government type and player choice.

Faction Leaders, the founders/leaders of a certain group of players. Factions are the main focus of this, as powerful factions can influence policy, by attacking or pressuring the HOS, etc. During anarchy/revolutions, they all act as HOS, which can be problematic if there are many factions. Faction leaders can start civil wars, revolutions, and coup d'etats. I'm thinking I'll split this into religious/political factions, too.

Citizens, who can join factions, obtain any above positions, petition the World Council, ask for foreign aid in revolutions, etc.

World Council members, who are the HOS's of their respective civs. This group deals with foreign policy and international interventions.

Founders of civs. The one and only extra job of these guys is to represent their civ at the first World Council.

Hope that helps, and hope you join!

Ok ill try to start it with India and Tradition.
Ok, since you don't actually adopt a policy immediately, this makes you:
A) The civ's founder. You'll represent India at the first World Council.
B) A Warlord. You'll act as a HOS during revolutions, etc. Your goal is to put your faction in power.
C) A Faction Leader. See above for that.
Just supply a faction name, and you'll be all set.

Hmm. I'll join in. I'm not sure if I want to join as a leader of a civ considering I'm not great at CIV V. I'll decide when more people join up.

EDIT: Will the world council be in effect the entire game? If it does I suggest that it doesn't. Maybe when we enter the modern era it could act like the UN

Alright, no problem. Joining first doesn't make you a civ leader, just a faction leader. If there's a specific civ you want, I'd choose it now, you can back down as a faction leader after getting other teammates.

Hmm true, but I'm sure someone will choose the French/Romans/Egyptians/English, I'm not very picky.

No problem. Just try recruiting people who might want to do this, I don't think it'll go too well unless 4+ civs have multiple factions.

I think it will be fine. I imagine it will turn out like a Diplogame that you win by winning in game. It might work better if you encouraged good RP with rewards ingame.

That's kind of the goal, the rewards part is how I'm thinking of doing it. One option is providing GPT and military from the civ I'll be running, but if someone gets TO'd and attacks it, then everyone's screwed on that front.

Hmm I was looking for a way for you to give rewards and you could use FireTurner. I'm not sure how it works but from what I read you can use it to manipulate the game.

I will join, with my preliminary civ as Japan ;)

I will clarify things later. (I reserve the right to change the civ prior to the advent of the game, i'm at uni now and would like to look over the civs more closely when I have the time to do so)

-

COMMENTS ON THE GAME STRUCTURE

I would advise changing the game structure to one which is less rigid in the internal structure of states. Basically, allow players who join a state to figure out its own governance structure (ergo the power distribution between team members). That way it will be less difficult on you and you can focus more on the diplo-game aspect of this, instead of all the internal things within the seven kingdoms. This should increase flow within the game and prevent it stagnating in the later stages of the game.

Basically, I would just open up slots for seven kingdoms (I wouldn't play in it if I were you, lest you be accused of bias) which individuals can establish and which players can join as teams. I would establish clear protocol for non-state actors (like say religions) and basic structures to facilitate international relations (like the world council thing) and for teams give game orders (what to build/research and so forth at set intervals (with things like settlers being sorted out with you via pm).

After that, and naturally after review and implementation of this brief outline, I would just let the game run to see how it develops as people fight for victory or death.

Ok, so to reply to above posts:

The World Council will be present in all eras, but will behave with differing degrees of influence. Rest assured, civs can only interact directly with others that they have already met.

If anyone knows if Firetuner is usable in hotseat, please tell me (along with how to use it)

Glad to see someone use Japan, and, of course, you are entitled to change it up until the first World Council.

Kinda hoping someone takes the Aztecs and Songhai, too.

I edited in some commentary above while you were writing, just in case you didn't notice. If you want to PM me about it I have no problem. My main concern is that in the mid to late game you will be overloaded with too much to do.

Now I have to go :) I will get back to you (and the game) later.

Jehoshua, I think I'm agreeing with many things you're saying.
I think what I'll end up doing is loosening the regulations quite a bit, and my major roles will be carrying out orders, and heading the World Council, rather than running nations.

Additionally, I think I may try using this, so that a few mods (YNAEMP, More Units, Info Addict (not sure about compatability with that one) and Super Cities) can be used, to make the game more interesting. Plus, it will allow me to use the rewards system.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=407562

I think this thread might become a development thread, followed by pertinent information being carried over into a new thread for the actual game.

Basically, I think the guidelines may be amended to this:
Up to 22 teams (though I expect far less).
Any government form is allowed.
There will definitely be some form of faction and religion system.
The World Council, which I will be a member of.
What should be done with these, other ideas, etc?

Good Idea making it a development thread. VERY happy your using an eath map! :goodjob: Also You do plan to have ais fill in as the other civs on the earth map right? Now for all my suggestions.

1)There doesn't need to be a faction system. If players want to team up they will do it without any help from you (and it will be less work).

2) You probably shouldn't play in it. If you want to have more influence you should RP for the city states and give your own Quests for influence over them.

3) Winning should not be based on who's civ wins. Everyone should get a point each Session that they can award others for good RP, and the GM can get 2 points to give. For winning in-game you can get a good amount of points. At the end the one with the highest score wins. If you go this route all victories accept domination and time should be turned off. You should subtract points from people who go to war without reason.

4)Keeping it fun.
You could make it so no player can be conquered. I know this will take out a little bit of fun but Friendly-Wars will help ensure everyone stays interested. So perhaps if one player attacks another player they must stop the attack once they take everything but the capital or when the victim admits defeat. The victim will than become a protectorate for maybe 50 turns and will be given an option of trying to break free. If they accept you could give them a couple units to give them a fighting chance.

5)You should limit the size of teams. Perhaps 2-4 people depending on how many sign up. You don't want one team that has 3 minds vs 4 others that are all out for themselves. 2 heads are better than one and it isn't fair if one team has 4 heads while the rest has 1.

6)You guys will never agree with it but it could be a lot of fun:
Colonization Scenario:
-Everyone starts in Europe.
-Old World Start
-Ai difficulty can be turned down to make it more like the Colonizing Europeans:Indigenous people ratio
-Get the Puppet Empire mod (you should get this anyway)
-You can give people points for every colony they found.

----------------------------------
Religions
There are two ways you can do them: Historically or gameplayee. In both I think scouts should double as missionaries. Also depending how much workload the gm has they could use major religions or 3 vague religions: Creatorism (Christianity/Islam/Judaism), Polytheism (Native American Religions/Hinduism), another one that could represent Buddhism/Confusionism/misc.

Historically
This will give the game a better atmosphere because for example the French wont be Buddhist.
Founding: You could found them in historically correct locations (or cities that echo rl cities), and at historically correct times.
Spreading:
Low amount of work for gm:
You could make it spread in a historic-like fashion. Players can build scouts which will double as missonaries, and can affect where it spreads. Missionaries could have a percentage chance of working.
High amount of work for gm:
You could make it spread to cities via roads and waterways (based on chance). It could maybe be biased if it's historically correct. (like french cities are 30% more likely to convert to Catholicism than Buddhism). Players can build scouts which will double as missionaries, and can affect where it spreads. This will be biased also.

Gamplayee
This will give players as much control as possible.
Founding:
Low amount of work for gm:
You could found it at a historically correct time in a random city.
More work for gm:
You could attach them to techs and give them to the first civ to reach that tech, and found it in a random city.
Spreading:
Low amount of work for gm:
It could spread via Missionary Scouts and spread to any connected cities (via roads or waterways) every 50 years or so.
High amount of work for gm:
It could spread via missionary scouts and spread to any connected cites at different chances based on pop, other religions, how far from the holy city it is, and how long it has been in nearby cities.
-------------------------------------

I would disagree on some things Dot80 is saying, like prohibiting wars of conquest. I personally would like to see this game as sort of an analogue for international relations at a civV gamer level. Basically a standard diplo game with a format to enable that with RP things and anything else in the game being organically developed by the players.

I would say, putting it at its simplest that you should do this.

---

GAME STRUCTURE

-

TEAMS

7 Kingdoms: (playable civs [NO AI's {except city states}] which are civilisation chosen by players. Once all seven are selected people can pick a team and play on that side working with the other members. If there is no second member than that civ will simply be run by its founder as supreme autocrat.

Team Death: If a state is conquered that team has lost the game, and its members are divided evenly by the gm between the various surviving teams.

-

STRUCTURE

Sessions: Sessions, occur every ten turns and at their beginning teams say what their civ will do (privately via a team social group) and any world councils will take place. Any necessary orders that must occur between sessions can be resolved with gm by pm.

World council: Ever (number) of sessions (I would say every 2 sessions with a session being 10 turns) there will be a world diplomatic council where people work out various issues of concern between themselves. Other diplomacy can occur via PM.

-

VICTORY

victory condition First team to achieve a victory condition wins the game and they get rewarded with kudos. The lowest ranked team at the end or the first to be eliminated through war gets eternal shame.

---

notes: I think that putting religion institutionally into the game will be too much micromanagement and be a distraction from the main point of such a game. I think religion should, if indeed it is present, be a product of RP in-game and part of a player developed game-story so to speak instead being an imposed thing, which would be perhaps be a superfluous addition to an otherwise coherent structure.

Do not do it on an earth map

I understand with people disagreeing with that. I've only played 1 diplogame and they had that as a rule. I liked it because I joined late so I was in a bad position. I was mostly trying to be considerate to people like me who aren't great. Though I have never lost at a game where I am going for conquest/domination and since he decided on a map I can set a strategy desgined for my starting positon.

We should definitely have ai. World maps aren't fun if they aren't filled with historical civilizations in their right places.

I would disagree with going with the earth map since it is by its very nature unbalanced (I editted that into my previous post). I think a randomly generated pangaea would be better, with the size fitting in with a seven kingdoms game withough having to deal with unnecesary AI's.

As to latecomers however. That shouldn't be a problem since they would be joining a team as one of the seven kingdoms and thus they won't be unduly disadvantaged by coming in late and joining a team.

As to war, war is a tool of diplomacy I think wars of conquest should, nay MUST be permitted. It adds a security dilemma factor that will encourage diplomacy.. (who knows we might even see a chain gang war :lol:)

Well that rule doesn't stop war. In the diplogame I played there was a fantastic world war. Even though I was weak I was supplying the Russians against the Germans who were defending their allies the Vikings. Meanwhile the French (german allies) had taken all the British cities in the British Isle sand thewere forced to govern out of a Colony in Iceland. Good times.

But yeah. Earth maps are great for RP. We will always have an example to go off of and give us ideas. Also things like the above are more exciting because it is a familiar world we could have lived in. If we do earth we'll either need enough signups or Ai.

I would avoid the earth map as I said before due to balance reasons. (and also since its sort of predictable and lacks to a degree spontaneity)

As to war, sure it doesn't stop war, but it does leave out the full force of the security dilemma. In your proposal you know you will not die so you will never engage in certain acts that could occur if you know you can be destroyed, there will never be an all or nothing last stand for example and even more so it removes an element of IRL truth, which is that states can indeed fall. Thus it adds an extra element to the game that makes it that much more engaging in addition to making it much more realistic. I would totally reject any attempt to make this game "nice and politically correct", it should be as ruthless and realistic as possible and if you fail diplomatically to prevent your empire from being absorbed, well than suck it up and help the team you transferred too at your original defeat to victory, using the lessons you learnt from your previous failure.

I still like earth map. Perhaps to ease any balance issues we could play test and adjust the map to be more balanced even if it isn't correct. Also we could sort the players based on skill. Just saying.

Thats fine. I'm not going to all out defend friendly war because I am on the fence about the idea. I just was making a suggestion.

I would advise CivOasis to NOT DO THE EARTH MAP!!! (sorting players based on skill is also arbitrary and thus problematic)

just do a random pangaea map and then all the issues of an earth map are gone and RP can go wild on the random pangaea. Oh and to add a final note on something else. I would not be averse to increasing the number of teams if we get enough players (it would definitely increase the diplomatic scope of the game ;) )

I still vote earth map. Though it wouldn't be as fun as it was on civ iv because they are two different games, and civ v doesn't feel at all the same.

who said you get to vote ???, Its totally out of your (or my) hands. That said I would seriously reconsider playing if it was on an earth map...

-

ON MODS AND DLC's

I will add one more thing (a trend :D), I would avoid mods just to keep the platform as simple and even as possible, furthermore a number of people wouldn;t be familiar with the mods and they add an unnecesary element to the game.

I would also lean to avoiding some of the DLC's. For example I would avoid the spanish/inca one with the El Dorado and other such natural wonders. They are a-historical and gamebreaking and it would be sort of a cop out for someone to get a massive advantage simply due to proximity to such a natural wonder. Indeed I would even lean towards cutting out the DLC Civs all together although I wouldn't strenuously argue for that. My primary concern with DLC's is the spanish/inca natural wonders (El Dorado/Potosi/Fountain of Youth)

Why? Because you chosen civ is stuck on island? :lol:

If we aren't on an earth map than by all means remove anything that is unbalancing. Also be sure to turn off start bias.

No, I just don;t want to use the earth map, its so.. well cliche and I don't generally like the idea of playing a MP on the earth map under the likely circumstances.

and it remains inherently unbalanced. I mean there are indeed the island civs (which you called my attention too) there are the america's detached from europe and there is the uneven distribution of resources that aid certain civs over others. It is simply impossible to rectify this imbalance without totally screwing the map over and making it something else. At least in a randomly generated pangaea these things are minimised, it is not pre-determined, and any differences are spontaneous.

That said, I won't play on an earth map. I think it is too predictable and too unbalanced to really get the most potential out of this sort of game structure.

Well we should definitely use an old world earth if we do that. I WANT AN AGE OF IMPERIALISM! That is my Favorited part of earth maps! Civ V is perfect for it cause cities dont even have distance from capital maintenance.

Do a pangaea, as they say keep it simple stupid, also I might add that in a world where civs arent guaranteed survival, colonialism will be off the cards (look at the apolyton game on Sulla's site). Sure I can agree to having a few islands off of the main pangea mass to facilitate fortress holdouts(custom??) but another continent, absolutely not. It would be a superfluous addition to the main act.

besides imperialism is so much more fun when you have to fight to gain your empire. :lol:

True, but if colonies are rewarded with points from my rp system (btw you never commented on religon or my alternate winning system) than it will cause that. Colonial wars are so fun... That is only a dream though... Perhaps we can have someone make a map for us. That is the best way to get an interesting and balanced map.

I commented on your proposal with my counter-proposal that excised any structural paradigm for religion leaving that sphere totally within the realm of RP.

I would keep to a random pangaea simply to keep the game dynamic and spontaneous. I would (naturally) keep to my simple structure to allow the game to develop organically through RP and through player politics. This has the dual advantage of being easier on the GM by avoiding superfluous structures, and in that it means the game will reflect the actions and RP of the players instead of being determined by structural precepts and actions within the game plan itself.

Indeed my proposal also has the wonderfully delightful element of the unknown, in that you really have no idea how the game would develop (compared to say a colonial map or an earth map, where the outcome can be predicted pretty easily)

Well we run the risk of everyone creating their own religion if we do that. I mean we have like 5 different ones that started in GaP.

point?

The religions would have no impact on structural game-play as they would be solely RP, and not within the bounds of an in-game structure. Besides there is no problem I can see with many religions since what happens with them is solely up to the players. (say some team wants to make an RP theocracy and play their civ accordingly, this would be a player action based in RP and would not be a product of a gameplay structure)

I guess... I'm not going to found my own religion.

We'll see in time :p

Let me sign up for this, I'll add some more details later. need to do some research ect and read the rules a few more times :P

4. Egypt
Government Type: Anarchy.

HOS: In anarchy.

Warlords: ShadowNX

Generals: none.

Governors: none.

Factions: Royalist (Tradition Based, will be keeping the Kings going for as long as possible, a monarchy to stand the test of time)

Citizens: ShadowNX

Religion: none.

The rules are not fixed in stone atm. This is a development thread where we discuss the rules first and then once they are determined another thread will be started for the game itself. (Rise of the Seven Kingdoms) (Rise of Empires) that sort of thing.

Currently dibbed civilisation for when the game starts:

India: Chgrogers : Emperor
Japan: Jehoshua : Emperor
Egypt: ShadowNX : Pharaoh

OK, so after reading this, I must say, thank you for all the interest and input, it's been very helpful.
So, I think the new rule should be:
Up to 22 teams (Input)
There will be a World Council, which will be composed of myself, and the HOS's, and that council will set laws, determine foreign intervention, etc. World Council will meet every 20 turns, unless an emergency is declared.
There will be AI, because they represent the unreasonable members of society.
Each civilization may set up their own government, so long as a HOS is present. The HOS does not need to have any power.
There will be two games:
1 will be on Terra. This way, everyone starts on the same continent, but colonial wars can still occur.
1 will be on YNAEMP, with resources set. Is this unbalanced? Probably, but players do have a choice of who they play as, so that really gets thrown out.
Both games will use More Units, which reduces production cost and gold upkeep on everything except settlers, to make games more exciting, military-wise.
The YNAEMP game will use Super Cities, which extends the max extent of cities to 10 tiles, workable region to 5 tiles. That way, island nations don't get punished.
All DLC will be available, however, depending on the original World Council's vote, any Natural Wonders may be removed (there's a dev mod with that feature).
Any responses, input, ideas? I think this might appease the most people. Players are encouraged to join both games, even if they are already in one.
I think, for fallen civs, a refugee system may be put in place for their players.

I may also ban military attack orders. It would appear that the mod that I want to use for rewards allows one to move, units, but not order attacks. Considering everything, that may not be terrible, but, if widely opposed, I may have to opt out of a rewards system. Its a DLL availability problem, should be fixed after its release. Whenever that is.

Actually, I think I'll bring it down to one game, Terra map, no rewards system/mods (in other words, hotseat). Any form of "rewards" can be determined by the world council, and respective civs. Good idea? After some testing and gameplay, I might start an Earth/modded game later, but the rules would have to be slightly adopted, given the nature of how those would have to be done.

Yes, you should definitely keep it to one game. I just think doing it this way wont be conducive to RP because no one really has to RP to keep up/get ahead.

Well, there's 2 catches:
I can use two dev mods, which will allows me to reward (or punish, for going against the world council) civs in literally just about any way I can think of, down to forcing them into war with a heavily armed cs, or giving them a new resource. I can order military units for any civ or CS (or barbs) to move, but attacks will be AI controlled.
I can use no mods, and actually order unit attacks, but rewards will be very difficult to use.
Its a matter of: what do you think is better?

Personally, I think I'm going to do the version with the dev mods, on a Terra map. I may run an Earth map one afterwards, or at least after this one is going smoothly.

Well that is what I'm saying. If winning is based on rp, than the reward could be extra points. But either way I don't want to play if the ai can choose my attacks... Do the second. Maybe you could build a worldbuilder scenario and give yourself land that has a ton of money resources so that you can award people gold that way, but you wont try to win. Thats all I can think to do with rewards.

The catch there is that I'll have to set everyone else's position, too.
The third way to do it, is to have diplo repercussions for disobeying the world council- I.E., if player 1 disobeys the council, the others all DOW him, etc. I don't know how well that will work, but that's the third option.

That is why we should have someone make a map. It works out well for the people in the civ IV democracy games. It could also mean a better map. They could make intentional choke points, and the need for trade between nations.

I still don't think the world council is a great Idea... a lot of people don't wont to be held down by the council. If you wait until the game progesses a little it would be much better. IMO

If there is no Council, then there's now 0 option for a rewards system, unless someone can think of a new solution.
At the latest, I would add the council in at the Renaissance, to adress colonialism.
I'm not gonna mess with the map, IMO, anyone designing it would be unfair.
I'm going to wait for Jehoshua's opinions, too.

The Renaissance would be a perfect time to start it. I'm not surpised he isn't more against the council. He seems to want the game to be as open as possible. (to the point where it is pretty much just a mp game with encouraged RP)

Well, that could be perfectly acceptable, as Polynesia would be the only colonial civ by then, and colonies would be the first major issue. Though, I think some limited court-type role should exist prior to that, though that needs more work done.
I'm personally favoring using the mods, because the reward system and balance issues could be addressed, and because people aren't going to be realistically able to micro-manage their units, anyways, but I do see where that would be incredibly unfavorable.

I do not like the idea of being forced into war just for defying the world council. Thats not the way it works IRL, no one declares war on you just because you give the finger to the UN for example. War should be up to states to figure out, so if a player defies the council it is up to other players to respond accordingly instead of being forced by some arbitrary game mechanic into a war that may not be in their national interests. Ergo its a diplomatic forum, and so its up to players to figure out a response for rogue states.

I also don't like the idea of AI's and would prefer to see a purely player based game (excluding city states ofc).

I can accept a terra map with a single game.

EDIT: why a rewards system. Any rewards you get in IR are your own doing, like gaining a swathe of land through conquest. i don't really see the point of such a rewards system as has been proposed.

Rewards were mostly just to encourage role playing I think. Also if we are doing a terra map I agree there shouldn't be ai's.

Ok, so, I think this will be my penultimate planning post:
Map= Terra
Up to 8 civs, all user run.
Each civ must have its own HOS, but all other rules are up to respective civs.
Starting in the Renaissance (of the most advanced civ), there will be a World Council, which will debate and vote upon many international policies, as proposed by the HOS's and myself.
The World Council will meet every 2 rounds, unless a HOS declares a state of emergency.
Rounds are sets of 10 turns.
Each civ's HOS must declare instructions for a round within 24 hours.
Rounds will be continuous, I.E., one round begins immediately as the previous ends.
Failure of an HOS (or their successor) to declare instructions will result in instant transfer of their assets, as decided by the World Council, and an instant DOW on all players (that do not have an existing peace treaty.

I left that intentionally vague, World Councils will determine a good part of the rest.
Looking at the reasoning for rewards, I fell they're unnecessary, the forums provide plenty of example of people enjoying the role-playing, sometimes even a little too much. I think that part should be fine.
Anything else that should be adressed?

I would start at the beginning of time, since the rennaisance seems far too late to me and I would really like to have the aspect of building your civ up from obscurity and no tech to power over the course of history. It just expands the possibilities of the game over all time-periods without excluding options in the game itself.

I would also change the rule about the failure to send in instructions (which should be private via a social group or PM) to give it a warning chance. Say one session is admissable (you can just play that turn for them) but after that if no one comes forward from their side with instructions, you can then either force the general war or secondarily make a request for a takeover from someone else (which if no one comes forward for that, then initiates the general war)

Other than that I am fine with what you have.

I would start at the beginning of time, since the rennaisance seems far too late to me and I would really like to have the aspect of building your civ up from obscurity and no tech to power over the course of history. It just expands the possibilities of the game over all time-periods without excluding options in the game itself.

He isn't starting the game in renaissance, he is starting the world council in renaissance.

Ah ok, If he is starting the world council (and not the game) at the rennaisance I woulf think that that would be sort of odd. I would say it should start at the point where everyone has met each other.

Well that doesn't realistically make much sense either. There were no really big international councils (that I can think of, but don't quote me on this) until the Catholic chuch but that hardly counts because everyone is going to make their one religion. Besides me of course. I might sign up as my own nation btw.

Indeed do sign up as your own state. It is better to have 8 teams of 1 person than to have less than that number of teams with each team consisting of multiple people.

As to councils, there were councils before the Church, generally of regional significance. Non-religious councils of global significance only emerged after the european hegemony over the world was established, and a concert system developed to maintain peace between the powers ( lasted fairly well, over a century after the napoleonic wars until World War One)

Indeed do sign up as your own state. It is better to have 8 teams of 1 person than to have less than that number of teams with each team consisting of multiple people.

As to councils, there were councils before the Church, generally of regional significance. Non-religious councils of global significance only emerged after the european hegemony over the world was established, and a concert system developed to maintain peace between the powers ( lasted fairly well, over a century after the napoleonic wars until World War One)

These non-religious councils were of course really only significant after the renaissance.

Of course, but this game isn't really about historicity is it. The World Council would serve merely to enable diplomacy in the game to a greater and more public degree than otherwise. Otherwise I can sort of see diplomacy for the most part going backdoors which may or may not depending on RP make the game less interesting for the casual observor.

Therefore I ask, who gives if councils were not significant until later in history?

Well I personally don't want to be under the thumb of a council until later in the game when I am set up and can more readily deal with it and judge my place in world powers. I don't think the game is aimed at casual observers is it? Shouldn't it be more fun for those involved instead of more entertaining for those watching? Anyway I was planning on writing a story for anything of interest that happens in the game. If everyone else does the same it should be sufficiently entertaining for others to watch, especially the ooc jests and ic hints which I'm sure will be rampant after it gets started.

I think a council should be setup when 4 like minded Civs meet and vote on enacting it. Until them you have to perform Diplomacy directly with Civs.

I think something like that should have to emerge naturally also bit Civoaisis wants it.

I would agree that any kind of World Council should be built up naturally as Civs meet each other and agree to form whatever kind of council they wish.

As an alternative to that, Civoasis could act as a kind of god, throwing out punishments and rewards as he sees fit, and even with a random element to it. Would have to be careful to avoid unintentional bias if we go down that route though!

HE can't do the rewards/punishment system because of the inadequacies of the mods available.

that would be interesting Civ 1 declares war on Civ 2. Rand 0-1 33% chance similar tech unit to declaring Civ 33% chance no change war starts. 33% of Declaring Civ Tech unit to Civ 2

Based on responses, I'll use the set of rules mentioned before. It does start at ancient, the World Council will start at Renaissance.
Regional councils or whatever can be applied whenever, by whomever, however... Basically, if it falls outside of the above rules, I don't care how you do it.
I will, however, adopt a one-time warning for civs who do not submit a response in time.
The world council's something I want to try, if it doesn't work, I won't use it in a future game. Simple as that.
DefoesRightBoot: I had toyed with that idea, might use it for a later game.
I'll edit in a link to a new thread as soon as it gets made.
Any game-name ideas?

Interesting game
I had a similar idea while I was making Governments and Politics. Now I'll be able to see how it goes :)
Dont have time to play it, but I will be observing ;)
Good luck!

New thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=437315
Player list assumes all current players will continue.

Before you start the game you need to put in explicit and strict rules about meta-gaming. With us all giving you order on the public thread anyone suspected of meta-gaming should be punished for it.

Also I think there should be no information on advisers given, and you should only post info on demographics when they come up in those lists. (does it do that on hotseat? If not you should most definitely compile a list every set amount of turnsets)

Or we could just give orders via PM....

I also agree that info should be given by PM except for that which would ordinarily be publicly available odinarily like demographics and vague statistics. Any other info must be determined by the player, through looking at other players land by scouting and through deduction.

Oh I was under the impression that it was all going to be done in the open. I think we should do it by pm.

Well if you ordered things via PM, you could still express things publicly. With things you want people to know (I am building a granary ;) ), or don't care if they know being expressed publicly and with things you don't want people to know (building massive victory army) being ordered purely via PM.

Furthermore naturally diplomatic things will be a combination of both. For example you could want to keep an alliance secret or you could want it public depending on the situation.

I'm going to request that people create either groups, and add me to them, or PM, if they think their civ is too small for that. Either, diplomacy remains up to the civ. Other thread's been updated.

Vote for Map (Japan) = Pangaea

Since were voting for balanced maps, I'll post some suggestions:
Amazon
Sandstorm
Continents Plus
Pangea Plus

Terra and Pangea won't be available, due to balance issues, but other maps can be suggested, until one is agreed upon.

Vote for Map (Japan) = Pangaea

Pangea's unbalanced the other way, it puts England and Polynesia at a disadvantage.

Japan is refraining for the time being: (favoured positions either Pangaea Plus, or continents plus)

Terra. The whole point of picking Polynesia is because the map was Terra.

.. Yeah, I get that. Personally, I think it's kind of unfair to gyp Polynesia out of that. But, on the other hand, I would be over-done for balance, in a way.
Personally, I'd say that the *best* option would to scale the map size up to huge (which I can do, just can't put more than 8 civs), so that everyone has room to expand.

In retrospect, that post makes almost no sense at all.
Basically, other option is to keep Terra, but maximize map size.

The Pangea Plus option came from a DLC, so, in case anyone isn't aware Pangea Plus (and Continents Plus) take the original Pangea and Continents scripts, and add chains of islands to them.

Japan could vote for a compromise position of Continents Plus?

This will give a half-way point between my preffered Pangeaa plus and terra allowing Polynesia to make more use of its unique ability while not totally screwing everyone else over and totally obliterating game balance to the point of requiring a ruthless genocide of the Polynesians.

Honestly there is a mechanic that will will limit their expansion, Happiness. I can usually play a game and be exploring by the time I build my 3-4th city. I think that the Terra map will be fine. Upping the map size will only lead to us dealing with more Barbarian threats.

Honestly there is a mechanic that will will limit their expansion, Happiness. I can usually play a game and be exploring by the time I build my 3-4th city. I think that the Terra map will be fine. Upping the map size will only lead to us dealing with more Barbarian threats.

Culture, too, if they want social policies.

The problem isn't really expansion, but rather the fact that no one can actually engage with them reasonably on terra until the later game. Everyone else could be invaded, traded with and otherwise interacted with diplomatically in a reasonable way... . Polynesia, well it would be sitting in glorious and unnassailable isolation in the new world.

Now of course if people want terra, they can have terra, I will accept that. Japan will even refrain from expunging the polynesians from the face of the earth if it is re-affirmed just to see what happens. So I will be refraining for now to let other people decide. If people agree that Terra needs to be changed, Japan shall vote for one of its preferred options.

Of course if they tried that there's always the entertaining possibility that they could set off for the new world with their starting settler only to have it eaten by a barb trireme.

Jehoshua, notice that no one else has a problem with the previously chosen Terra. It seems here that you actually found a foe that can rival you easily, and you want said nation neutered so you won't have competition.

Ravus Sol would had rolled with the punches and put it into consideration in his plans instead of whining to the mod. You're right, he's nothing like you. He's better

Of course if they tried that there's always the entertaining possibility that they could set off for the new world with their starting settler only to have it eaten by a barb trireme.

This provides a prime example of their dilemma.
If they go for a hail mary, the barbs could get them.
If not, their capital will always be vulnerable.

I don't really care about a comparison with Ravus Sol Omega.

As to the terra, I did indeed factor it into my considerations beforehand and rolled with it as you say, ergo the plan for a genocide of Polynesia. You just happened to bring it up because someone foolishly told you, thus why I suggested the map change again to avoid such unpleasant things from being initiated (which is also why I did it before quietly to CivOasis, since I don't really find the idea of screwing you over early to be in the interests of an amicable and friendly game).

Of course now that its out in the open I am perfectly fine if people do not want to change the map, I will even refrain from attacking polynesia. However if Polynesia runs off to victory on the back of the new world, I won't say that my original plan to screw you over was unnecessary.

Either way we'll see what happens, clearly the plan is unviable now, since you know about it and will react accordingly. (Hail Mary for the win :lol:), so you can be rest assured that even if you stay in the old world, Japan will not be sending a screaming horde of barbarians over the border anytime soon.

Ah what the heck, just go with the terra and we can see what happens :lol:, some idiot who knows not how to keep secrets or what is in the best interests of their empire has shot my plan to screw over Polynesia, so the best thing is to let it run and see what happens.

The Hail Mary has been discussed in the Strategy Forum and its better to settle the First city and travel to the New World with the Collective Rule Settler.

The Hail Mary is an inferior strategy in single player since you waste turns that could be used in production early. But in multi-player a lot of the ordinary rules and strategems get thrown out the window.

In the case of the hypothetical impending dog-pile genocide, the Hail Mary suddenly becomes a viable strategy in a multi-player game.